Subject: Re: Are res_send and res_query thread-safe?
To: NetBSD Userlevel Technical Discussion List <tech-userlevel@NetBSD.ORG>
From: Greg A. Woods <email@example.com>
Date: 04/04/2004 15:09:34
[ On Saturday, April 3, 2004 at 15:28:43 (-0500), Christos Zoulas wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: Are res_send and res_query thread-safe?
> On Apr 3, 3:23pm, firstname.lastname@example.org ("Greg A. Woods") wrote:
> -- Subject: Re: Are res_send and res_query thread-safe?
> | (which I assume is really the BIND-8 resolver as ported to BIND-9 (from
> | lib/bind in the distributed source), and not the true BIND-9 lwres
> | library (from lib/lwres), right?)
> | Can you expand a bit here on what you've done to resolve the nsswitch
> | vs. ISC IRS functionality, if anything?
> There is no IRS there. IRS is in the get*() routines which we use our old
> ones. I've merged some of the changes from bind9 that seemed useful, but
> mostly our code is better.
Ah, OK, so saying "libc with bind9" was incomplete, if not a bit
misleading, at least to those of us who've been trying to think of some
way to do a wholesale switch to a resolver maintained in a larger scope.
You didn't port BIND-9's lib/bind (or lib/lwres) to NetBSD's libc, so
much as simply take some of the changes from BIND-8/9 and apply to them
BTW, does anyone have any existing analysis of what's better in the
NetBSD code and which could be given back to ISC to improve the generic
> The multi-threaded issue of having one _res per
> thread needs to be addressed and we should have a pool of _res.
Well you need one _res per thread I think, or at least one for every
thread that ever does any DNS lookup. From the application's point of
view I think the API has to match whatever BIND-8/9 does, so is there
really anything that can be done?
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP RoboHack <email@example.com>
Planix, Inc. <firstname.lastname@example.org> Secrets of the Weird <email@example.com>